Standing Committee A

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

Clause 11 - Power to require specimens of breath at roadside or at hospital etc.

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 53, in clause 11, page 14, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Leave out subsection (1)(a) and insert— 
 ''(1) to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device approved by the Secretary of State and operated by a trained operative in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.''.'.—[Mr. Chope]

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 54, in clause 11, page 14, line 20, at end insert—
 ''(2AA) For the purposes of this section a breath test shall not be relevant if it is administered within 20 minutes of alcohol having been consumed or would have been so administered but for a failure to co-operate with it.''. 
No. 56, in clause 11, page 15, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(6A) In section 8 of the Act (choice of specimens of breath), leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 ''(2) If the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath the person who provided it shall be asked by a constable if he wishes it to be replaced by such specimen as may be required under section 7(4) of this Act and if he then provides such a specimen neither specimen of breath shall be used.''.'.

Christopher Chope: The points that I was making before we adjourned are serious. I ask the Minister to put safeguards into the Bill. If that were to happen, it would have a salutary impact on this important area of interaction between the police and the public. I am not in the business of wanting to try to create loopholes; I want to ensure that the law is as clear as possible, thereby reducing the scope for a misunderstanding or a feeling on the part of the public that they have been hard done by.
Stories in the press today about the disproportionate effort made by the police to convict somebody of eating an apple show just how we should not be going in this country. The police have completely the wrong balance in their relationship with the motoring public. If the amendments become law, it will help to improve the relationship between the motoring public and the police.

Greg Knight: I rise to support the thrust of the argument put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and in particular to ask the Minister to focus on amendment No. 54.
The practice is adhered to by the police because it is common sense. It saves them wasting their time; clearly, if they administer a breath test to someone who has consumed an alcoholic drink only seconds earlier, the reading will be over the limit and they will go through the process of arresting someone who, it will transpire, is probably under the limit. The 20-minute rule is an important one. Although my hon. Friend made the point that someone who is given a breath test within the 20 minutes will not suffer the injustice of being found guilty when they are under the limit because of the procedure that takes place at the station, there is nevertheless the injustice of being arrested and having one's liberty withdrawn, even if only for an hour or so. That important provision has served us well. 
I am aware from my previous incarnation as a lawyer that where someone is stopped by the police and reveals to them that he has had a drink only five minutes previously, the police often make a judgment while they are waiting for the 20 minutes to elapse by speaking to the driver. On at least three occasions, to my personal knowledge, the police have concluded in that period that the driver was clearly cogent and not over the limit. They then changed their minds, aborted the process and let the driver proceed on his way. 
I hope, even if the Minister does not want us to put this on the face of the Bill, that he will give the Committee an assurance that this practice of the 20-minute wait between the drink and the administering of the test—a good practice—will continue.

Adrian Flook: I am aware that we may have a small problem with the Committee, and I shall continue talking to help the Minister focus more accurately on the notes that he may have to refer to for the questions that I would like him to answer on this clause.
I am particularly concerned, not by the fact that there will be testing at the roadside, but about the kits themselves. I have never been breathalysed, but I have been pulled over on a purely random test. In fact, I was not driving, although it was my car; my then girlfriend, who herself had not been drinking, was driving. I have never seen a breath test carried out at the roadside, so I would appreciate the Minister going through how these evidential tests might differ from the current tests carried out by police constables at the roadside, for the sake of the record. 
If the Minister could also provide us with information about where these particular kits are currently being used elsewhere in the world, I should be most grateful. If they are being used in the European Union, will it be a simple crossover in terms of the compliance requirements? If they are being used in Canada or the United States, are they being used in particular states, and have there been any problems with those kits?

David Jamieson: An interesting situation has developed in the Committee; somewhere in between my office and here, I have dropped my glasses. I will therefore have some difficulty reading. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is very generous in offering me a pair, but he has been beaten to it by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has very kindly lent me a pair of his glasses. If I look like a north of Scotland MP for a moment, it will be because I am wearing his glasses. Fortunately, my Department has arranged for the type of my notes to be of a certain size, which allows me to read without my glasses.
I ask the Committee to oppose these amendments 53, 54 and 56. Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 has served us extremely well for many years in respect of the requirements it makes for the conduct of evidential breath tests. The amendments that the hon. Member for Christchurch has moved—with very good intent, I am sure—are unlikely to alter the way procedures are undertaken, or will in future be followed, by the police in dealing with drink-drive suspects. 
These procedures are covered by a precisely worded set of documents known as the MG DD forms, and can be found on the Home Office website. I have got one copy of them here with me, and I daresay that if hon. Members want to have a look at some of the procedure, it is available to be seen. The police, in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service, will be adapting these to deal with the roadside and hospital circumstances for breath testing. So, although this will probably help the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), they apply to the current regime of breath testing. Obviously, a new script will have to be written for the police officer in the light of the new procedures. 
When I say ''script'', the police have to follow something like a script; there are words they have to say and questions they have to ask. Clearly, if somebody fails the first part of the evidential test, what is different is that instead of them being arrested and taken to the police station for the blood or urine test— or a breath test in some cases, with special machinery—the test can be administered at the side of the road. It will, however, be administered within the very careful guidance set down in the same way as in the past. 
Under the Police Reform Act 2002, a new procedure for taking blood specimens from unconscious people was introduced, suitably adapted to meet the new scenario. I assure Opposition Members that the procedures at the roadside will be no less rigorous than those at the police station. [Interruption.] I now have my glasses—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has been extremely generous—and I can actually read the brief. 
Amendment 53 aims to ensure that breathalyser equipment is used by trained persons in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. One feature of the type-approval requirements is that equipment used in court evidence should be technically sound and foolproof. The hon. Member for Christchurch will, I am sure, recall from his time as a Minister that we are talking about an aspect of road traffic law on which legal challenges were once commonplace, and sometimes even successful. 
Fortunately, the courts have dealt with such attempts to pick holes in the procedure and thereby undermine the police. Over time, a substantial body of case law has been established that helps to make procedure and equipment as close as possible to beyond challenge. As regards the breath-testing equipment supplied to and used by the police, I understand that if someone attempted to use the equipment other than as intended by the manufacturers' instructions, it would not produce the results required. Although I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member for Christchurch has raised, the procedures are well established and open, and a reference in statute will not make them any more or less effective.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister put on record the fact that anyone operating such equipment will have to be properly trained and must operate it in accordance with the manufacturers' instruction?

David Jamieson: I was at pains to say just that. Traffic officers have to undergo specific training, not just on the operation of the equipment. Officers have to follow clear and careful guidelines when dealing with such offences because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they have been open to legal challenge, so the structure of the procedures must be tight enough to inhibit any such challenge that could be made against them. The proper training will be given and the procedures will be adapted to the new situation, just as they were in 2002.
Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with procedure for the evidential breath test. Whether the test is taken at a station, as it is now, or at the roadside, as it will be if the Bill is enacted, it is preceded by a preliminary breath test, as provided for under section 6A(1), to give an indication of whether the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath or blood is likely to exceed the prescribed limit. 
Having secured a positive screening test reading, the police will proceed to an evidential test, whether at a station or, if the Bill is enacted, at the roadside. At that stage the individual will again be asked whether he has consumed anything and a further 20 minutes will be allowed if that is the case. It would not be helpful to put in place specific provisions to cover that. The amendment would also appear to carry the risk of transferring the onus Of course, they generally would not have the knowledge to be able to do that.

Greg Knight: The Minister has just said, in relation to the second test, that the question will be asked again, and if the reply is that the person has consumed a drink within 20 minutes—those were the words that he used—he will then wait another 20 minutes. Is the Minister saying, in effect, that there could be a 40-minute wait in total; up to 20 minutes before the first breath test is administered, and then a further 20 minutes before the second one?

David Jamieson: That could only be important in the unlikely case of the person at the side of the road somehow taking a drink after they had been given the first test. That would be extremely unlikely, although not beyond the bounds of possibility. I would not have thought it advisable for someone accused of such an offence to do so, but I suppose that the police officer goes through the procedures and asks the question as part of the formality.

Greg Knight: That was not the picture that I was painting. It may be that I misheard the Minister. I thought that he said that if the motorist revealed that he had had a drink within 20 minutes, the police then wait up to 20 minutes for the first test; if that test is positive, the question is asked again before the second test is given. The Minister then said that there would be a wait of a further 20 minutes, which means 40 minutes in total; 20 minutes before the first test and 20 minutes before the second. Did he mean to say that?
I am not talking about a motorist who goes to the back seat and takes another swig of whisky. If a motorist has consumed alcohol within 20 minutes of being asked to take a test and fails the first test, the police subsequently carry out a second test, and he is asked the question again, at which point he would say, ''Yes, I had the last drink 21 minutes ago'' because they  have waited the first 20 minutes. The Minister said that there is then a further wait of 20 minutes. Did he mean to say that?

David Jamieson: If the police officer asked the first time, ''Have you had a drink within 20 minutes?'' and the answer was no, they would go ahead with the test. When they ask the question again, the answer again should be no. If the motorist failed the first test and the police officer then goes through the script and says, ''I am now going to give you the evidential test'', and asks the motorist the question again, the answer must again be no—if he is telling the truth—because the police officer has been standing in front of him.
I said that there may be a circumstance in which the motorist answers yes in the first instance, and says that it was five minutes ago, so they allow the 20 minutes to elapse. There cannot be a further 20 minutes before the next time, because he must have been telling the truth, or got his hip flask out in the mean time. The question is asked again, but there would not be a further 20-minute wait.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. It is as I assumed it would be; that once the first 20-minute wait has taken place, unless the police see the man taking a swig from a bottle that he has in the car, there is no further wait. That being the case, why do they ask him the question again?

David Jamieson: That in itself is a good question. I believe that it is a formality, because they are then moving into the evidential testing, and it is just a procedure to be absolutely sure that they have got it right. They give the screening test and the evidential test and, to be absolutely sure, they ask the question again. We can have a look at the instructions in more detail, and perhaps we can learn them off by heart so that the hon. Member for Taunton will be aware of them, in the unlikely event of him ever being stopped again with his girlfriend.

Adrian Flook: For the record, I got married 15 months ago, so I would be in real trouble if it were a girlfriend. I should like to clarify whether the screening under the new legislation will replace what would currently be given as a breath test. Could the Minister clarify that point?

David Jamieson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that he has not got a wife and a girlfriend; that would have given us some concern. Yes, that is the situation; there will be a screening test, which is a fairly simple and, I am told, fairly accurate test. It shows the crystals turning certain colours, but it is not an accurate test in terms of providing evidence for a court. If that test is positive, the next stage is the evidential test. There is still the ability for the police officer to arrest the person and take them to the police station if they choose to do so. As hon. Members will see later, the person has the ability to ask for a test at the police station if they are under a certain level.

Adrian Flook: Let us assume that the screening test has been conducted and is positive. The Minister said that the driver would then be asked a further question about the 20 minutes. At that point, if the driver takes a Trebor mint out of his pocket and goes to put it in his mouth, can the police constable prevent him from doing so? Under what regulations can he prevent the driver from taking anything? Is there such a ruling to prevent the motorist from causing another 20-minute wait?

David Jamieson: As I understand it, there would come a point at which the police officer had to make a judgment as to whether the person was trying to obstruct him in carrying out his job. I suppose that if a person repeatedly did something that inhibited the officer from doing his job, he could be charged with obstruction or with refusing to give a sample of breath. It may be of interest to hon. Members if we go through the procedures, but I should say first that there are very few challenges now. Over the years things have been tightened up to such an extent that it is difficult to make a challenge unless the officer carelessly makes a mistake in the procedure, which is of course perfectly possible.

Adrian Flook: Let me explain my concern. Currently, a driver who has been stopped on suspicion of drinking and who has failed the screening test will be taken immediately to a police station and probably breathalysed on the machine properly. As time goes on, drivers who have been pulled over will realise that the time between screening and an evidential test could be much less. Consequently, they will play for time as far as they can, probably sometimes in the mistaken belief that the longer they wait for the test, the lower their alcohol reading will be. In fact, if they had just left a public house, their reading could continue to go up, so waiting would mean a higher reading and probably a greater penalty in court. Can police officers say to someone, ''You have now failed the screening test. You are not allowed to imbibe anything, and that includes eating.''

David Jamieson: I think that what is possible will be contained in the guidance to the officer. I do not have intimate knowledge of that now, but we can consider the matter. I know that, at the moment, there are no challenges, because the police go through a procedure that ultimately has to stand up in court. The person could make a challenge at the court hearing if they felt that the procedure had not been followed fully and properly. In the past, people have done that and it has sometimes been a defence for them.
I understand the idea behind amendment No. 56, but I can assure the hon. Member for Christchurch that the procedures undertaken at the roadside will be no less rigorous than those undertaken at the police station. As I said, the MG DD guidance will cover that; it will provide the exact wording that a police officer should use in those circumstances. 
Perhaps I can add to what I said before about the history of the drink-driving law. It has in the past been peppered with challenges. One reason why sections 4 to 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are quite difficult to  follow is that they have been amended only where absolutely necessary and then with great care and attention. 
I hope that, having heard those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his full response. The problem is that, as I said, what should happen does not always happen, which is the burden of the letter that I received from an experienced citizens advice bureau person. Why is it not happening? Although the forms are available, there seems to be anecdotal evidence—I have no direct evidence because I have never experienced the procedure at first hand—that they are not always complied with and that sometimes the police take short cuts.
To say that the forms will be adapted to the new situation and that there will be a new script is fine and no surprise, but what guarantee is there that the forms will be complied with to the letter, in all situations? The evidence seems to be that up to now they have not been. 
One way through might be to make the use of the forms a statutory requirement, so that failure to use them would result in the procedure being vitiated and the offence not being established. The Minister says that the case law is beyond challenge, and that is true. However, it was always thought that the 20-minute gap was a requirement, but case law has established that because Parliament did not set it down as a requirement, it is not a strict requirement; just a recommendation. We have the opportunity, as Parliament, to make sure that what should be included is included. I do not know that the Minister's answer deals with that matter. 
Obviously, we hope that police officers will follow the MG DD form procedure, but nothing at present requires the person who is being asked the questions to be given a copy of the form, enabling them to follow the procedure. Everything is reliant on the police officer saying that he proceeded along the course in question, without any short cuts. 
The Minister's response to amendment No. 56 was particularly weak, because we are dealing with a different situation now, one in which a series of breath tests will take place at the road side. The scope for confusion will be much greater. Also, in the new situation the police may carry out a very large number of such tests. I suspect that that is the thinking behind the change in the law; the police could set up a breath-testing station on a temporary basis, on a main thoroughfare, soon after closing time, and screen tens if not hundreds of motorists in one area. As long as that does not strictly amount to random breath testing and they have a reasonable belief in each case that the driver may have been drinking, we cannot quarrel with that. But it will put a premium on the ability of the police to deal with the procedures in a streamlined fashion. 
We also need to take into account the person who wants to go down to the police station and have a urine or blood sample taken; this human nature and what  will happen in practice. Police officers will have people lined up and will be going through the procedure, and the person who wants to go to the police station will be a complicating factor. 
It is likely that there will be considerable temptation to short-circuit the procedure for ensuring that that option is given to someone who is close to, but over, the limit, particularly when, as we know from the proposed new subsection, the police will be able to say, ''If you choose to go to the police station for a blood or urine sample, we will have to arrest you'', making it seem as though the person is being put in greater jeopardy than they are already in. That could complicate matters as well. 
If we are trying to build up confidence between the police and the public, why do we not put the onus fairly and squarely on the police officer who has the form? It is only a matter of printing the form out in a slightly different way. Why is the police officer not required to say on the form whether the specimen of breath on the screening tests suggests a proportion of alcohol greater than 35 units but not greater than 50? A person in that situation should have the opportunity of going for a blood or urine test to validate the finding. 
I am ignorant about whether people who are on the margin benefit from going for a blood or urine test. If people are close to the margin, it is human nature for them to want to be absolutely sure that they are on the wrong side of the law. I see it as helpful for police-public relations to put the onus on the police to ask the person whether they want to take a blood or urine test, rather than putting the onus on the accused to make that request, with the additional problems that it will cause the police in their streamlined procedures. 
On amendment No. 56, it does not seem to me that there is anything inherently wrong in changing the burden. It could be adapted in the forms that are going to be adapted anyway. The change would have the beneficial effect of removing the scope for misunderstanding and a feeling of injustice on the part of the accused. The last thing that we want is for people to feel that they have been unjustly dealt with. So unless the Minister will give us a further assurance that he will consider the suggestion of amendment No. 56, I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the first amendment, but will press amendment No. 56 to a vote.

David Jamieson: All I can add to the debate is that, if we did as the hon. Gentleman suggests by putting the procedures in primary legislation, we would have to come back to Parliament every time that we wanted to make changes to them. There will be, and have been, changes in the light of court cases, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want us to come back for primary legislation every time that we needed to make changes. That would not be a good use of parliamentary time.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said that we should not clutter up the statute book, but amendment No. 56 is just a slight adjustment of the statutory provision, so I do not think that the Minister's defence applies to it. On the more general proposition that the Minister is concerned about, if it were made a statutory requirement that the police comply with the MG DD forms, whatever those forms were and however they might be amended, it would still stand as a duty that they should comply with the forms in their latest format.

David Jamieson: We will have to agree to differ on that. The other issue that I did not cover was the machines themselves, about which there was a question earlier. I understand that mobile machines exist and are being used in other countries. It is almost certain that they will meet our requirements. If the Bill is enacted, the Home Office will seek type approval of such equipment.

Adrian Flook: Further to that point, in which countries are they used? Are there any international standards currently in existence or will there be any international standards? These machines are reasonably new in terms of technology. I presume that they are also fairly bulky and will give an accurate reading.

David Jamieson: There will be no international standards. There is no body such as the International Maritime Organisation for international agreements on this matter. Nevertheless, there will be companies producing equipment of a high quality. I am informed that one of the countries that currently has such equipment in operation is Sweden. Like us, it has a good record on road safety. I dare say that if the equipment is appropriate and suitable for use here, we would probably adapt it for our purposes.

Adrian Flook: Sweden is part of the EU. If court cases are pending that question the reliability of these machines, will the question mark over the machine in Sweden undermine its use at the roadside in Britain?

David Jamieson: Of course it would. If the Swedes found that their machine was not working properly, the last thing that we would want to do is to take an unsatisfactory machine. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be EU guidance on this, I would say definitely not. These are not EU matters.  They are matters on which we should decide as individual countries. We have different laws on drink-driving to many of the other countries. We have much steeper penalties for a start.

Christopher Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Amendment proposed: No. 56, in clause 11, page 15, line 3, at end insert 
 '(6A) In section 8 of the Act (choice of specimens of breath), leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 ''(2) If the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath the person who provided it shall be asked by a constable if he wishes it to be replaced by such specimen as may be required under section 7(4) of this Act and if he then provides such a specimen neither specimen of breath shall be used.''.'.—[Mr. Chope.] 
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I will be brief. I have two points to make. First, I would find it helpful if the Minister could give members of the Committee a copy of the MG DD forms. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton would welcome having sight of them, if that is not too onerous a task.

Christopher Chope: It might also be useful if the Minister was able to explain what the initials he is using actually stand for.

Greg Knight: I am sure the Minister will have heard that; now that he has his glasses perhaps he can indeed tell us what the initials stand for. My other point is really a question as to whether this Bill should become law in its present form, with clause 11 in it. How does the Minister see this change being implemented? Does he envisage the police trialling this new procedure in certain counties first, to see if there were any problems with it or whether any new procedural guidance was necessary? Or does he see it being implemented across the whole UK?

David Kidney: May I ask the Minister a question about clause 11? Clearly we are amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 regarding procedures for breath testing, but we are not amending the parts of that Act about when police may test. I  wonder whether the Minister has given thought to that and decided against making any difference. Can he explain whether the Government have any further plans in that respect? To take him through the situation, clearly the present worry is that in recent years we have seen a rising number of deaths where drink-driving is involved. At the same time, there is apparently a falling number of roadside breath tests by the police. The question must be asked as to whether we are going in the wrong direction and whether something extra needs to be done to try to reverse that trend, so that deaths start to fall again.
So far, what we have agreed in clause 11 is valuable. The police may carry out the evidential test at the roadside and also at the hospital bedside, instead of at the police station. That is a valuable addition to the police's powers in terms of deterrence. It is also potentially a massive saving in police bureaucracy back at the station, where all those forms must be filled in for every single detention. So there are some good things. But are we doing enough to deter drivers from drinking and driving, by showing them that there is a great risk of being caught, if they dare to risk it? I know that the British Medical Association thinks the answer is to allow a power for random breath testing. 
The hon. Member for Christchurch touched upon that in a slightly different context; the argument being that if anybody could be stopped at any time by the police and be tested for drink-driving, it would be a massive increase in deterrence. Now that does sound a bit draconian; yet looking across to the continent, it seems several countries do have random breath testing as part of their law. I gather a Swiss study of 1998 found that random breath testing was one of the most cost-effective safety measures that could be implemented. It seems that at a European Union level, the European Commission recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety was that there should be an element of random breath testing in each country's strategy. 
Now, we do not have random breath testing and we seem to set our face against it, but some people argue for an intermediate stage between it and the present law. They call this targeted breath testing, which the Government themselves referred to in their road safety strategy ''Tomorrow's Roads -Safer for Everyone''. The sentence reads: 
 ''At present, the police can stop any driver but can only carry out a breath-test only if there has been a road traffic offence, an accident, or if they suspect that the driver has been drinking. We are looking at rationalising the law because the current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to have powers to breath-test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to assume an amount of drinking may have taken place.'' 
That is consistent with what is now called the intelligence-led model of policing. The question is whether our present law allows this intelligence-led policing. I know some police forces think it can be squeezed into the reasonable cause basis of being able to breath-test people, but others are a bit uneasy that they would be pushing the boat out too far. It has acquired great significance recently. Last week I mentioned that on the same day as the Second Reading  debate, the Secretary of State published his written statement about responses to his discussion note on graduated penalty points. 
Also on the same day, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and the Department for Transport published a new agreement; a commitment to a new road safety strategy within which the police made four commitments. The first is a highly visible police presence on the roads. Hooray to that. The second was a national police seat belt campaign, which is valuable. The third was the continued operation of the national safety camera programme, which I think is important. 
The fourth commitment, crucially, is a national police drink and drug-driving campaign to ensure that people are deterred from those activities by a significantly increased risk of detection. 
At the moment, I am not convinced that we will suddenly start to reverse the fall in roadside breath tests every year unless we change who gets stopped and tested. I repeat my question to the Minister: does he think the present law allows for targeted breath testing, or did he intend, in his 2000 statement, to do something more that has not yet appeared in the Bill?

David Jamieson: Clause 11 amends certain sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 6D deals with arrest; section 7 deals with the provision of specimens for analysis; section 8 concerns the choice of breath specimens; section 9 deals with protection for hospital patients; and section 10 relates to the detention of persons affected by alcohol or a drug.
Regarding the questions asked by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, we will make the forms available for the Committee as soon as possible. They are available on the Home Office website, so if anyone wanted to have a look, particularly if they had been accused, they could scan through them there. The right hon. Gentleman asked about implementation. We hope that that will be as soon as possible, throughout the country, although type approval of the equipment is required first. As I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Taunton, we would need to be satisfied that we had good equipment, that it was accurate and fit for the purpose, that it would give us results and that it would not be challenged in court. Once we have the type approval, the roll-out and use of the equipment is an operational matter for the police. It will not be for my Department or the Home Office to instruct them on their new power. 
One of the main advantages of the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, is that they streamline the process for the police. If, on a busy night when they are out on patrol, they can curtail the time needed to take a drink-driver back to the station and get the evidence they need for a court appearance, so much the better. Then they can capture more drink-drivers, or people who have committed other offences. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. 
The response from the police is that they are satisfied that their current powers enable them effectively to capture people who are obviously drunk and over the limit. There is one other thing about blanket random testing: the police operate in this country generally with a lot of good will from the public, and they do an excellent job, not just on road safety but on other issues as well. I would be concerned if there were widespread random testing, because even late at night there are many drivers who are perfectly law-abiding and have not been drinking. The attitudes against drink-driving in this country are very strong indeed. The overwhelming majority of people here do not drink and drive, and would not dream of doing so. That is not just a generational attitude—it applies to young people as well, and many of them are seriously responsible about drink-driving. The problem is the small minority who are not responsible. They are the ones who are breaking the law. 
I would be reluctant to advocate stopping lots of good, law-abiding drivers. Firstly, because it is not a good use of police time—it takes a lot of time to stop people. Secondly, we should not be inconveniencing people who are going about their business lawfully. Thirdly, it could drive a wedge between the people and the police if drivers are constantly stopped. One young constituent of mine has a job that leads him to come home from his place of work at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, and he is stopped by the police every other night. He gets quite cross about that as he says, ''All I want to do is go home and get to bed, but they keep stopping me and inspecting my car''. He does smell of alcohol because he works in a bar, but he has not been drinking. In cases like that I am aware that stopping drivers could lead to bad feeling between the police and the people. The discretion that the police have at the moment is quite adequate. It is for the officer on the ground, in the street, to make those decisions. They have the power to stop somebody randomly, but they do not have the power to start giving the alcohol test—they can only do that with good reason.

Adrian Flook: While we are talking about breath testing will the Minister make a passing comment as to when we can expect testing for those who are under the influence of cannabis?

David Jamieson: I will not stray too far on to this matter; otherwise I will test your patience, Mr. Pike. We recently gave the police some guidelines for testing  people who may be under the influence of any sort of drug. Those enable the police to operate a test on people at the side of the road which will indicate whether they are properly in control of their faculties. As for a test for a specific drug, that would be difficult to administer at the roadside, and we are nowhere near having equipment that can test in those circumstances.
Cannabis would be very difficult to detect at the side of the road. Studies have shown that some people who have taken cannabis slow down and are more cautious in their approach to things. The difficulty here is that drugs have different effects on people. Furthermore, many people take not one drug but a package of drugs and alcohol. Somebody just taking cannabis on its own may or may not be a danger to themselves or others. It shows up in the bloodstream for a considerable period after somebody has taken it, but the question is how much it has impaired the person. 
This area is fairly new to us. Alcohol is clear and specific. It is one substance which can be checked. We have all the equipment and the experience of dealing with alcohol, but we certainly face challenges with other types of drugs. We do not entirely understand what effect drugs have in impairing people's driving. We have a breathalyser for alcohol, but we do not have a drugalyser that can test for a whole range of drugs. 
Returning to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, we need good targeting of people. Targeting has improved—the number of people who have been stopped have been found to be over the limit. I agree that that could be an indication that more people are driving under the influence, but it could mean that there is better targeting of people, and that the police are using resources to good effect and stopping and breathalysing the people who are committing the offences. My colleagues in the Home Office are aware of the matter. 
It is disturbing to see that a minority of people—some of them men aged between 20 and 30 as well as, I am sad to say, a growing number of younger women— seem to think that they can control their car when they have had a considerable amount of alcohol. We have focused some of our recent advertising more specifically on the groups of people involved. The latest television advert, which has had a considerable effect, shows that people become drunk drivers in the pub, not in the car. We will continue with such programmes. We are going to introduce laws and change police procedures, but we will also keep up our efforts in other directions.

Christopher Chope: We have had a good debate on this clause. I very much support what the Minister said about the undesirability of harassing motorists with random drug testing, which is in line with our policy. What the Minister said, in effect, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford, was that the wording of the White Paper was empty phrasing because there was no need to change the law at that stage. The Government realised that, but it made a good story for the road safety lobby. I do not ask the Minister to accept that in public, although he may do so in private.

David Jamieson: That is a very good question; I asked it myself, and I am happy to deal with it. If someone who has been pulled to the side of the road fails the evidential test, the police officer will have sufficient evidence to charge that person and take him to court. When the formal procedure of obtaining the evidence comes to an end, the police officer will have to decide what will happen to that person. They may use their mobile phone and arrange for a relative to pick them up, or to pick up the car, and they would then be free to go on their way. One of the advantages of the system is that people who are wobbly on their feet will not be held for a long period in a cell where they are liable to make a mess; someone can take them home.
The officer would have to establish, too, whether the person lived close enough to be able to walk or get public transport home, and he may allow them to do so. He would have to be sure that they could not drive the car, and he would have the power to take the person's car keys to stop them driving the car. If the officer thought that as soon as the police had left the scene the person would use a spare key to drive the car, he would have the power to arrest that person and take them back to the police station, just as he would have done previously. That would be the last port of call, as it were, because there would be no saving of police time and so on. In the end, if an officer thought that the person was going to commit the offence again, he would have to use his powers of arrest.

Greg Knight: What is police practice in cases where officers stop a driver who is found to be over the limit on a busy road where it would be dangerous to leave the vehicle? If the driver lives only a short distance away, do the police ever offer to drive the vehicle home when the procedures are completed?

David Jamieson: The police use good sense and discretion in such circumstances. If the car was on a busy road and was causing an obstruction, which might cause another incident, the police would move it to a safer place and also prevent the driver from taking it. It would be entirely a matter for the police at the scene. If someone was very close to home, what the right hon. Gentleman suggests might be an option. At present, the police arrest the person and take them back to the police station and do not release them until  they are sober and able to drive their car. The car may be driven to the station by a police officer if there is no other appropriate place to take it.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Period of endorsement for failure to allow specimen to be tested

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain the impact of the clause and why it is necessary to change the law.

David Jamieson: Yes, it is important that I explain that. It was self-evident for the previous clause. I will go through the legal niceties, because they are important.
Clause 13 corrects a consequential amendment missed in the Police Reform Act 2002, which inserted section 7A, which was headed 
 ''Specimens of blood taken from persons incapable of consenting''. 
I will explain that. Once I have put it in legalistic terms, I will try to put it in everyday-speak—just so that I understand it myself. 
Once an endorsement on a driving licence ceases to be effective, the licence holder may apply to the DVLA for a new licence that is free from the endorsement. Under subsections (5) and (6) of section 45, ''Effect of endorsement'', of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, endorsement for most driving offences remains effective for a period of four years from the conviction, or four years from the date of the offence if no order for disqualification was made. 
Section 45(7) of the 1988 Act provides that the period of effectiveness of an endorsement in respect of specified driving offences connected with drink or drugs, or failing to provide a specimen, is 11 years from the conviction. That is because, when an offender is to be sentenced, account must be taken of any other such offence of which he has been convicted within the previous 10 years. When a person has previously been convicted of any such offence within a period of 10 years, section 34(3) of the 1988 Act, which concerns disqualification for certain offences, provides that the court is obliged to disqualify that person for a minimum period of three years. 
Although the offence of failing to allow a specimen of blood to be laboratory tested was added to section 34(3) by section 56 of the 2002 Act, that Act omitted to add it to section 45(7). The clause therefore amends section 45(7) by adding the offence of failing to allow a specimen to be subjected to a laboratory test so that  when a person is guilty of an offence under section 7A(6), the endorsement will remain effective for a period of 11 years from the conviction. 
I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch has followed every word of that and understands it in its entirety. To put it in everyday-speak, when a person whom the police suspect is over the alcohol limit has been involved in a road collision and is not in a position to give approval for their blood to be analysed—they may be unconscious or the circumstances may be such that they cannot give that permission—once they are in a position to make a decision about the sample, if they say, ''No, you can't test my sample,'' they are charged with failing to give a specimen. However, as the law stands at the moment, that endorsement will stand on their licence for only four years. We want that offence to be treated in the same way as refusing to give permission at the side of the road. It is a matter of bringing the treatment of a hospital patient who subsequently refuses to allow the specimen to be tested in line with that of somebody at the side of the road who says, ''You're not taking a sample from me.'' Such a person is treated as if they were a drunk driver. It is as simple as that—although I have to say that it did not sound that simple in my initial description.

Greg Knight: The Minister is unduly harsh on his comments. He did make things clear. It would be an overstatement to refer to the clause as closing a loophole, but it clearly removes an inconsistency so we do not wish to divide the Committee.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Alcohol ignition interlocks

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 14, page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 14, page 17, line 40, leave out '9' and insert '30'.
No. 59, in clause 14, page 18, line 14, at beginning insert 
'without reasonable excuse to comply with a reasonable requirement.'. 
No. 60, in clause 15, page 21, line 35, leave out from '2010' to end of line 37.

Christopher Chope: The purpose of the amendments is partially to draw more from the Minister about the thinking behind the path that is being taken with this clause. Amendment No. 57 would remove from subsection (7) the provision that a court must be satisfied that a place on an approved alcohol ignition interlock programme will be available before it can make an alcohol ignition interlock programme order. Does the Minister agree that that provision could be a big inhibiting factor in the implementation of such a programme?
The provision will apply only in specific areas of the country, and in those areas the magistrates and courts will know where it applies. The best solution would be for the courts to be able to put offenders on such programmes when it appears to them that the offender should go on the programme and consents to do so, rather than their having to be satisfied that there is a place on such a programme before they can make an order. A sentence could be imposed and if there were any problem with its implementation, a further order could be made. The current wording is likely to result in far fewer orders being made than would otherwise be the case. 
I move to amendment No. 58. Can the Minister explain why, although the legal limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, when it comes to having an alco-lock, one will be in breach of the order or will be unable to make the vehicle work if one has more than 9 micrograms of alcohol in the breath? In this probing amendment, I replaced the figure nine with 30 on the basis that 30 is less than 35, but gives a larger margin within the legal limit than nine does. Nine micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath is probably in line with what one could get in the atmosphere in a pub full of people, or it might be the amount of alcohol that is residual in the body for many hours, if not half a day, after one has been drinking. 
Amendment No. 59 deals with certificates of failing fully to participate, and is a practical suggestion that I am putting forward, with all due humility of course, to the Minister. At the moment, the provision is absolute in that if the offender has failed 
''to attend at a place specified by the programme provider for the monitoring and maintenance of the alcohol ignition interlock, at a time specified by the programme provider or a person with whom the programme provider has made arrangements for its monitoring and maintenance'', 
he has got himself in a mess.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify two aspects of the amendment? First, is he suggesting that if someone fails to attend such a course with an excuse, they can be certified as having participated in a course that they did not attend? Secondly, why is he seeking to insert the phrase ''without reasonable excuse'' only in one paragraph of new section 34E(2)?

Christopher Chope: To deal with the last point first, the issue of reasonableness does not arise in subsection (2)(a), which refers to making payment of fees and is straightforward. The hon. Gentleman will also notice that reasonableness already appears in paragraphs (b) and (d), but is conspicuous by its absence in paragraph (c).
The final amendment in this group is to clause 15 and is related to the experimental period operating for clause 14. We are asking whether the Government should be able to extend that period beyond 2010 at their own behest. The provisions currently enable the Secretary of State to run the experimental period for much longer before coming to a decision on whether it should be made permanent. Again, I hope that the Minister can explain why he needs to take the extra power of enabling an order to be made at 
''such later time as may be specified . . . by the Secretary of State'' 
rather than at or before the end of 2010.

David Jamieson: I will take the Committee, and in particular the hon. Member for Christchurch, down memory lane again. He will recall from his days in office the early development of the drink-drive rehabilitation courses and the arrangements put in place under the Road Traffic Act 1991 to refer offenders to such courses. On successful completion of such a course, an offender can have a reduction in his period of disqualification. We are replicating here something that was tested in those early days.
The scheme was begun as an experiment—here again we are trialling it—in a limited number of court areas, but in 2000, after evidence had been gathered that reoffending among the course attenders was about two and a half times lower than for non-attenders, it was rolled out nationally and continues to be successful. In the new system of alcohol ignition interlock programmes, the scale of application may be slightly narrower, but the impact could still be significant. 
Broadly speaking, referral to an alcohol ignition interlock programme works in the same way as referral to a drink-drive rehabilitation course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember, albeit that it is 14 years ago, what was in the 1991 Act. We have now replicated it in the Bill. That is why I was surprised that he tabled amendment No. 57, because it seems to contradict what he put into the legislation in the heady days of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that the Minister is really saying that he does not believe that the legislation that I pushed through the House was subject to as much detailed scrutiny and argument as the Bill.

David Jamieson: If a Bill is not receiving detailed scrutiny and argument, that is the Opposition's fault, not the Government's. I was not in the House at the time, but I am sure that my hon. Friends gave the Bill careful scrutiny. I am sure that you were here, Mr. Pike, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was here. Had he been on the Committee considering the Bill, he would have given it the closest and most thorough scrutiny, as befits a good Opposition. The hon. Member for Christchurch might learn something about being a good Opposition from this Government, because once he has learnt to be a good Opposition, there is a good chance that he might one day become a good Government.
Accordingly, the provisions for the drink-drive courses have been modelled closely on those in section 34A, B and C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The sections have clearly served us well and we have largely stuck with them. 
By amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 the hon. Gentlemen have sought to make some refinements to the arrangements, and I shall go through them quickly. Amendment No. 57 would delete subsection (7)(a) of new section 34D, one of four conditions that must be satisfied before a court can make an alcohol ignition interlock programme order. Paragraph (a) says that the court must be: 
''satisfied that a place on the approved alcohol ignition interlock programme specified in the order will be available for the offender''. 
There would be no point in the court referring someone to the alco-lock programme if no place was available. The court would have to be sure that a place was available, as it must be now with the rehabilitation courses. The intention here is clearly not to raise false expectations of a course of action that cannot be fulfilled. In practice, the effect of the requirement is that the courts assure themselves of the general availability and capacity of courses in their area and liaise with course providers. We would expect much the same co-operation with alcohol ignition interlock programme providers under the provisions in the clause. 
The hon. Gentleman said that the court would be saying, ''Thou shalt attend''. That is not quite the case. First, not all drink drivers will be able to go on the programme. Certainly serious offenders and those on the rehab courses will not be able to. The court, in its wisdom, would have to decide whether a person was sufficiently contrite and would benefit from such a course. If it did not feel that they would, it certainly would not give them any remission of the ban. 
We have to remember that the alco-lock system will not be imposed against the will of the offender; it will have to be done with their co-operation. The person would have to agree beforehand where they were going to attend, how the lock was going to be fitted, and confirm that they understood the limits of what they  could do. The lock could be fitted only in those circumstances. It would certainly not be fitted without the total acquiescence of the offender. 
On the other point, an alco-lock programme order is not a compulsory course of action for a court. Before the course is taken, it will be for either the court or the offender to suggest it. Once the offender has begun the course, they will be compelled to complete it properly. If they do not, they will be removed from the course and their ban will start again—and quite right too. The option should not be an easy one, but one for those who are seriously contrite and want to mend their ways.

Christopher Chope: What happens if somebody changes their address and moves from an area where courses are available to one where they are not? They may have to travel quite a long distance to have their ignition lock tested. It may not be impossible for them to do that, but their ability to do so instantly would be limited. They may need a bit more notice than ''Next Wednesday morning''. Will the system be sufficiently flexible to accommodate people who move outside the area where the experiment is running?

David Jamieson: A person in such circumstances would have a number of choices. First, they could negotiate with the provider of the course and ask to move to a course in another part of the country. Secondly, they could come off the programme and face a resumption of their ban. They would have to decide which course of action they wanted to take. There could be difficulty in some circumstances, but as the system is rolled out throughout the country, the number of such cases would decline.
Nevertheless, the course is not an easy option. Those on the course have to comply with its terms; it is not there for their convenience. If it does not suit, they will find themselves banned again. They have to fit the course, rather than the other way round. 
As for amendment No. 58, new section 34D(9) defines an alcohol ignition interlock for the purposes of legislation. Subsection (10) states that the level beyond which the proportion of alcohol in the breath will cause the alco-lock to prevent the engine from being started is 9 micrograms of alcohol per 100 ml of breath. The amendment would change the figure of 9 to 30. That is just below the legal limit for alcohol in the breath, which the Committee will know is 35 micrograms per 100 ml of breath. 
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the alco-lock should only operate when a person has drunk so much that they are approaching the limit of being able to drive legally? Is he saying that people should be able to say to themselves, ''I can have a pint or two before I go, then test the machine to see if I am somewhere near the limit''? That is not the point of the provisions. We are telling people that it is not just a question of driving below the limit, but driving when they have not drunk alcohol. 
The figure of nine micrograms amounts to virtually zero for all intents and purposes. Some people, due to medical conditions, have a background amount of alcohol in their breath all the time that may be a little  more than nought, so the amount of 9 micrograms is treated as zero. We are saying that people on the programme should be sober. They should not drink up to the limit and hope that they can get away with it. If someone is drinking just up the limit of 30 micrograms—just below the legal limit—they have not learned their lesson, should not be on the road and certainly should not get remission of some of their ban.

Greg Knight: I wonder if the Minister can answer a scientific question. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised the rather alarming thought that the human body might ingest alcohol through the air. I think my hon. Friend referred to this in his opening remarks. If one were in a pub but not drinking, a person might find that they had ingested 9 micrograms. I have heard of passive smoking; I have never heard of passive drinking. I wonder if the Minister will confirm that that is a scientific impossibility. Will he also explain what 9 micrograms would constitute? If a person consumed one glass of wine and waited 20 minutes, where that would put them on the range before us?
I accept much of what the Minister is saying, but the law is the law and if a person is within the law, surely they are entitled to drive. If someone has under 30 micrograms in their body, he is not breaking the law, so why should he be prevented from driving?

David Jamieson: Very simply, because that person has had some remission of their ban for drink-driving and has been allowed back on the road. The law gives them a small remission and allows them back on the road, but they must demonstrate that they are sober and that they have mended their ways. If they do not want to do that and want to carry on drinking, they just have to accept that they will not be able to drive. This Bill, when enacted, as I hope it will be, will not allow them to do that. Anybody who says that they can go into a pub, breathe deeply and get drunk is in a fantasy world. I have been into a few pubs in my time; oh that we could! It would save a lot of money.
Human bodies are different, and a large person who is used to drinking alcohol and has eaten food when they absorb alcohol is in a very different position from a very slight person who has not eaten and is not used to drinking alcohol. For some reason, women absorb alcohol into the blood quicker than men, and different racial groups have different rates for absorbing alcohol. Northern Europeans are more resistant to alcohol absorption in the blood than, for example, some of the Asian races. They are just physiological facts, so there is no answer to the question of how much one must drink to reach the drink-driving limit. The answer is that a person who receives a remission of their sentence must demonstrate that they are nowhere near the limit for drink-driving.

Greg Knight: I think that the Minister is telling us that he is rather wedded to the figure of 9 micrograms. If that is the case, why does subsection (10) end with
''or such other proportion of alcohol to breath as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe''? 
Why does he envisage making that change?

David Jamieson: It gives us that bit of flexibility. If from time to time there needs to be a change, we will be able to make it. If the figure of 9 micrograms was not appropriate or we received medical advice that it was not appropriate, we could make the change.
Amendment No. 59 concerns new section 34E, and deals with the issue of not fully participating with the requirements of an alcohol ignition interlock programme. Subsection (2) specifies circumstances in which the offender would be regarded as ''not fully participating''. Paragraph (c) specifies the condition 
''to attend at a place specified by the programme provider for the monitoring and maintenance of the alcohol ignition interlock, at a time specified by the programme provider or a person with whom the programme provider has made arrangements for the monitoring and maintenance''. 
Amendment No. 59 would insert at the beginning of that condition: 
''without reasonable excuse to comply with a reasonable requirement.'' 
Although I understand the safeguard intended by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, it is superfluous. Reasonableness must be read throughout the provisions, and any law has to be imposed reasonably. In those circumstances, the provisions would not work. That is the reason why there is an appeal process; it can test whether the police or the providers of the course have acted reasonably.

Christopher Chope: In that case, why does the proposed new subsection include references to the ''provider's reasonable instructions'' in paragraph (b) and a ''reasonable requirement'' of the programme provider in paragraph (d)? There is no reference to reasonableness at all in paragraph (c).

David Jamieson: I shall deal with amendment No. 60 and return to that point.
Clause 15 (1) provides that no order shall be made under section 34D—that is a court order referring an offender to a programme—after the end of 2010 or 
''such later time as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.'' 
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was generally in favour of sunset clauses. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

David Jamieson: I was dealing with amendment No. 60 and I dare say that, in the fullness of time, the hon. Member for Christchurch will reappear so that he can hear my answer. He asked about reasonableness. I am told that reasonableness is inherent in the overall requirement of subsection (2) and hence the reference to it in paragraph (d). The difference between (b) and (c) is that (c) spells out more clearly what is required of the offender. I hope that is a perfectly reasonable answer to a reasonable question. Perhaps the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire can convey it to the hon. Gentleman when he reappears.
I hope that has been a helpful reply to some of the points made. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments before us.

Christopher Chope: First, I apologise for not being back in time. I was on the telephone with a lawyer in Munich, where one of my erstwhile constituents is currently in jail. I am sorry that my telephone conversation overran slightly. I will not go into the details of the case, but I might share them with the Minister afterwards; he might have a wry smile.
As far as the substance of these amendments is concerned, I am grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that he has. I was disappointed, however, that he ignored that I said that amendment No. 58 was a probing amendment, and sought to take it literally, as a sort of policy option. I am also sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire took the view that I was scientifically inaccurate about this matter. I am sure that what I intended to say was what the Minister effectively said in response; that up to the limit of 9 micrograms—one can give a puff here, or a puff there—anybody may well be at that limit. 
The Minister has not really addressed the issue of people who are not teetotal, who have drinks in the evening and then get in their car the following morning. We know that if they get in the car in the morning and are over a level of 35, they have obviously had a skinful the night before. But there is a question mark over whether somebody might have a level of 15, having had drinks the night before; nobody would suggest they were anything other than sober. It is that area of doubt that I wanted to identify and draw attention to in my in my probing amendment. The Minister has given rather an absolutist response, saying, more or less, that this programme is only going to be suitable for people who are absolute teetotallers. I certainly did not think that was the original purpose.

David Jamieson: I intervene partly so the hon. Gentleman can catch his breath, as he has been running up the stairs. It is not intended that the programme should turn somebody into a teetotaller. It  is intended to say to a person, whether or not they are carrying on with a moderate or relatively high level of drinking, that if they come onto this programme and get some release from the ban, they must demonstrate that they are not just near the limit, but virtually at a zero level when they get in their car and start driving it. That is totally fair and reasonable, as a person is getting off some of their ban. If we did anything other than this, it would be quite ludicrous, and offensive, particularly to those people who have suffered the death and injury of their relatives by drunk drivers.

Christopher Chope: I am not sure that somebody who had killed somebody through drunk driving would be able to qualify for this course. The Minister and I are ad idem, however, on the principles that we are trying to address. I am trying to ensure that the practicalities are taken account of. My concern is that somebody who is, for all intents and purposes, sober—or capable of being able to drive safely—in the morning after having been out for dinner the night before will not find that because they have residual alcohol in their system, they cannot get the car started.
I have no technical expertise; I do not know the rate at which alcohol leaves the system. As the Minister says, it is impossible to say exactly what happens, because each person has a different constitution and a different speed at which they absorb alcohol and at which it is released around the system. 
We should be able to have some general guidance as to whether someone who has been out drinking the night before and then makes to start his car to go to work the following day is likely to have a level above 9 micrograms and therefore will be incapable of using the vehicle.

John Thurso: My understanding of the clauses is that the device is intended for those people who are high risk; those who have committed a relevant offence and are therefore in the high-risk category where the longer bans have been imposed. It is a way of mitigating that. We are not dealing with somebody who has committed one offence and is now living a normal life, having learnt their lesson. We are dealing with people who have a repeat offence track record, and sadly often suffer from alcohol addiction. In those circumstances, zero tolerance is right.
To help the hon. Member for Christchurch, roughly speaking one unit of alcohol metabolises from the average body in about one hour. One unit of alcohol is equal—very roughly as it depends on the size of the glass and the volume of the alcohol—to one glass of wine. One can therefore work backwards as to how much of a skinful someone has to have had to have residual alcohol the following morning. I do not think that it is too much to ask, given those figures, that people should be clear in the morning. I would therefore support the level of 9 micrograms.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made more of a speech than an intervention. It is a pity that he did not join in the original debate,  as he is obviously a lot more expert in the matter than I am, and probably very careful in the calculations he makes.
To deal with the Minister's response to amendment No. 60, I intended to ensure that there was a clear sunset clause. The Minister seemed to interpret my amendment as against the principle of sunset clauses. My intention was to prevent the experimental period from running on. 
I do not know whether the Minister will want to look at it again, but my intention was that by preventing a later time beyond the end of 2010 for incorporation, the experimental period would have to be finite. People who were planning and investing and so on in the programme, which might be quite expensive to set up, would know that it would end in 2010. Hopefully, it would by then have been such a success that it could be made permanent. People might invest because it looked inevitable that the measure would be made permanent, but might find themselves frustrated when the Government exercised the power in clause 15(1)(b), which would extend the experimental period, rather than dealing with the substantive case for removing the experiment and allowing it to be a general facility available to the authorities. 
I do not think that we have quite established what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire wishes to do, but I do not wish to divide the Committee on any of the amendments. However, it was important to raise the issues in the way we did. Although the start of the programme may be some way down the track, the detail will be highly relevant to those on it when it starts and to those who implement it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I rise to ask the Minister a question. I understand from something that he told the Committee that the Department has laid on a demonstration of the alcohol locks for the press. If the Department has a vehicle with such a lock fitted, I hope that the Minister will consider inviting hon. Members with an interest in such matters—I include all members of the Committee in that—to a demonstration. Personally, I would like to see one of the locks in operation.

Adrian Flook: I may well have missed the Minister's comments on proposed section 34D(10) of the 1988 Act, but could he clarify that it specifies 9 micrograms and not 8, 11 or 12?

David Jamieson: First, I shall deal with the point that the hon. Member for Taunton made. Fortunately, our proceedings are recorded accurately by Hansard. If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard, he will see that the point that he raised was dealt with fairly thoroughly, so I shall not detain the Committee further on it.
If there is an opportunity to demonstrate the device to Members of both Houses, we shall attempt to do so. We have given demonstrations of the hazard protection test, which I think many members of the Committee enjoyed. If we can put on a demonstration—not, if possible, with half the members of the Committee staggering about drunk and trying to start the car—I shall be happy do so. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Penalty points

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: May I ask the Minister whether he will allow the courts to make their own minds up when deciding what the penalty points should be or whether, concurrently or consecutively to the passing of the Bill into law, he will issue guidance to magistrates to give examples of the points that they should impose? If he intends to issue guidance, he should share it with the Committee before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.

David Jamieson: We discussed clause 16 when we dealt with clauses 2 and 3, so we have been pretty well round the houses on the issues. As I said at the time, we would have to put forward a proposition. There would have to be a consultation on that proposition and it would then have to come before the House in the form of a positive resolution statutory instrument before any of the measures could be introduced. As I was at pains to say last Thursday, and as I will repeat now, we have listened carefully to the debate on the issue in Committee and outside, and we shall be mindful of that as we take matters forward.
The law fixes the penalty imposed on an offender. If driving at a certain speed attracted, say, four, five or six points on a person's licence, there would be no discretion. If the person decided to contest that and go to court instead, the magistrate would have some discretion over the fine up to the maximum level permitted for that offence. Generally, the law sets out, as guidance to magistrates, obligatory amounts of penalty points that are imposed for an offence. We would need to have further discussions if we had a  proposition to change that. The proposal would then go before the House again. It would be then be converted into guidance for courts, and it would probably be appropriate to look at any guidance that may be given to magistrates. I hope that that is helpful.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that. When he talks about the guidance, could he also discuss mitigating circumstances, which I mentioned earlier? The standard notices that go out with the penalty points will say that if there are mitigating circumstances the matter can be taken to the magistrates courts. As we know, the magistrates have no right to reduce the number of penalty points from the standard three imposed under the existing law or below the minimum under the new law. When the Minister produces guidance will he ensure that it extends to those pro forma letters? People who receive fixed penalty tickets will then realise that they cannot obtain any mitigation in respect of the penalty points by having the matter referred to the magistrates court. That is not clear at present.
The other problem is that the fine associated with fixed penalty points is fixed. Although magistrates cannot change the number of penalty points imposed, they have some discretion over the fine, and in making their decision they will want to take into account the offender's means, which will have to be disclosed in any claim for mitigation. That will open up a new can of worms for the offender who wants mitigating circumstances taken into account but does not want to raise the spectre of a £60 fine becoming much higher because he happens to be of substantial means. I hope that the Minister accepts that there is an inconsistency which should be addressed in any guidance. This question arises from a constituency case which I mentioned before. I have had a substantive but much delayed reply about it from the Court Service, which has identified that there is a problem with the present law.

David Jamieson: The use of the word ''mitigation'' is becoming a bit confused. If someone feels that they have been wrongly accused they can go to court, and the court could throw out the evidence. The person would essentially be not guilty of the offence of which they had been accused. Mitigation is usually where there has been a guilty plea or where the person has been found guilty and the offender wants to plead some very special circumstances. As I understand it, there may be some offences in respect of which magistrates have discretion over both the points and the financial penalty, but in most cases the law clearly sets out that the penalty points are mandatory. Generally, however, it is within the gift of the magistrates to operate their discretion over the financial penalty. The guidance to the court and the magistrates would not come from my Department. I  am sure that careful note will be taken of the information that is given to the offender along with the notice. Safeguards are built into the proposal.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Speed assessment equipment detection devices

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 17, page 22, line 43, leave out 'detect, or'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 39, in clause 17, page 22, line 46, leave out 'detected' and insert
'provide information about the location of'.

Christopher Chope: My amendment and that tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross are incompatible. The latter would outlaw all equipment that provides information about the location of speed assessment devices; my amendment would limit the ambit of the clause to devices that interfere with the speed assessment equipment.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled the amendment because there are several devices on the market, including the Road Angel. I regret that I speak with some ignorance, although some hon. Members may have this equipment, which I believe may be purchased at considerable expense. I am told that the Road Angel contributes to road safety; it is very effective in reducing the number of accidents among people who have the equipment because it alerts them to accident blackspots, which is where cameras are placed; the driver then modifies his driving accordingly. I have no basis on which to question the assertion made by those who market the devices, so they must surely be a good thing. If they go further and interfere with the operation of the speed assessment equipment, no one would wish them to be on the market or to be used. However, if their purpose is to allow motorists to be more aware of accident blackspots, surely we should not prohibit them as the clauses proposes.

Paul Stinchcombe: On Thursday 20 January, the hon. Gentleman criticised fixed cameras because he said that local people get to know where a speed camera is placed and slow down, then accelerate away. Would not his amendment lead to even more such behaviour?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is facing up to the fact that the speed cameras are of limited use. I thought that he and his hon. Friends and the Minister were arguing that they were of use. Obviously, as I described earlier, people slow down at the point where a camera is if they know that it is there. The purpose of installing a camera is to reduce the number of accidents at its location, and in many cases a camera will secure such a reduction.
The point that I made in the earlier debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that too many people now regard speed cameras as a substitute for the general law on speed limits. They think that they have to comply with a speed limit only where there is a camera. This matter is about the psychology of enforcing speed limits; it is about finding appropriate limits; and it is about the reduction, which we have greatly criticised and continue to criticise, in the number of police officers who patrol the roads. 
The principal point that I raise in the amendment is that if motorists are enabled more easily to identify an accident blackspot, that must contribute to road safety rather than undermining it. That would be the effect of the amendment.

John Thurso: As the hon. Gentleman said, my amendment is diametrically opposite to his. That is for a specific reason: I wanted to probe the Minister as to the Government's thinking on clause 17 and the reasons for its wording. I thought that, rather than draft an amendment to do something similar to that tabled by the hon. Gentleman, I would not pander to the boy racer element but would aim for something a little more responsible, listen to what the Government had to say and withdraw the amendment on that basis.
I want genuinely to probe the Government's precise thinking on the clause. I have experience of a detector. It goes back a few years to, I think, not long after the hon. Member for Christchurch introduced speed cameras. A friend of mine acquired a device that he plugged into his dashboard. We went tooling down the M40 and the device kept going beep. He later discovered that it beeped every time he went past a microwave oven. A great many such devices were sold at that time, but they detected any and all forms of microwave energy and were set off by all sorts of things apart from cameras. In fact, many people believe that many of these devices, which are sold on the basis of being accurate, are of great value to the people who sell them and to no one else. 
I am reliably informed of another, far more worrying, device, which, I believe, is already illegal, and which, it is claimed, somebody has fitted to their car. It is capable of detecting a hand-held radar gun that is laser-operated and sending a reciprocal beam that causes the gun to jam and reset while setting off an alarm in the car. The driver can then slam on the brakes so that, by the time the constable has reset the gun, the driver will be at a speed that is legal. It seems  to me that the fitting of that device, which is at one end of the spectrum, should be illegal. I hope that it is. The device has no purpose other than to permit the driver to exceed the speed limit and hope to fool any covert or overt detection. 
I now come to the devices that the hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned, such as the road angel, which I do not know anything about. He says that the device sits in the car and goes peep when it detects something, so that the conscientious driver in the car, who is not intentionally exceeding the speed limit, immediately checks their speed to make sure that they are doing the right speed when they go past the camera. This morning I amused myself by reading the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2005-06. If the argument is that the device is to help safety, under camera signing rules a fixed camera must have a warning sign within 1 km of the first camera, which may answer a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised the other day. For mobile sites, warning signs must also be placed in advance. 
There is also rule 4 on ''conspicuity''. It says: 
 ''Fixed speed camera housing must be coloured yellow, either by fully painting both the front and back of the housing or fully covering both the front and back of the housing with retroflective sheeting.'' 
There are even recommended paint numbers and other such specifications. The handbook goes on to say that cameras must be conspicuous and visible and at a minimum distance of 60 metres if the speed is 40 mph or less or 100 metres at all other speeds. It strikes me that if one is paying attention to the road while driving along, missing one of those cameras with all that colour, signing and distance means that one probably deserves to get nicked. I do not see how a device that may go peep on the dashboard would make a great deal of difference. Therefore, what I am interested in finding out is whether there is a real argument that such devices can help safety or whether they are just going to help people who are predisposed to go a little faster than they ought to. 
My second question is for the Minister. With all that signing, do we need also to have maps and all sorts of other things that help people to work out where cameras are? What is the logic of making everything as visible as it is and permitting such devices? As I said at the outset, I will not press the amendment to a vote. It is a probing amendment. However, I am interested to know what the logic is in removing detectors, but not removing other equipment in the car that can detect a location but do not detect the device itself.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that train drivers receive audible warning signals to back up their visual inspection. If it is good for train drivers, why is it not appropriate for car drivers?

John Thurso: I am not sure whether you will rule that question in order, Mr. Pike, but I would have thought that there was a straightforward difference—the way in which the vehicle is driven. One is on rails, where a dead hand is used, the method of control is different and the critical aspect is making sure that  drivers stop at red lights, do not pass them and observe a number of other commands that are external to the cab. A car driver is in variable control mode. He is turning the wheel, using the accelerator, the clutch, the break and other elements and he has a visual sign that he needs to be able to see. The eye is the principal organ that the driver is using in the operation. So, there is a clear distinction. The question for the hon. Gentleman is why an audible sign adds to safety, given the conspicuity that is already prescribed.

Greg Knight: I think that a wide body of opinion took the view a few years ago that these devices were probably illegal, but no one was certain. It was only when a court case was brought fairly recently by an enthusiastic Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor against a driver who was using a detection device that the issue was settled in law. In that case, as I understand it—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—the judge decided that the car owner was receiving a signal that was intended for him, so no offence was being committed. The court therefore decided that these devices were lawful, and that is probably why the Government have put this clause in the Bill.
I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said. There is an overwhelming, unanswerable case for outlawing devices that interfere with a speed detection device, and I do not think that any member of the Committee would dissent from that. However, I disagree with the Minister's thinking on detection devices. The Government's whole policy is to allow detection to be easier. What is the difference between a can of yellow paint and a device in a car that achieves the same end? The Government have decided in their wisdom that speed cameras should be visible and motorists should see where they are and not be caught by surprise. If a motorist decides that he wants to have in his vehicle a second aid of an audio device, in addition to the visual yellow paint on the camera, why are the Government saying that should be illegal?

David Kidney: To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, is not the difference that not every camera housing has an active camera inside it?

Greg Knight: That is the case, and some cameras that still use it may be out of film. However, cameras that are not active are changed. A camera casing that is not working one week of the year may, in another week or month, be active. Such units are changed around. I do not think that the amendment is pandering to the boy racer; it enhances the Government's decision that cameras should be visible and motorists should be alerted to their presence.

Richard Younger-Ross: I think that the right hon. Gentleman missed the point about extra camera cases. We have discussed cameras at accident blackspots, and one advantage of empty camera cases is that drivers do not know whether they are live or not, so they slow down. If someone has a  detector device in the car, it will tell him that a camera is not live and he will not have to slow down and will be inclined to speed through a camera placed at a potential accident blackspot. Therefore, devices that beep on the front of a car will alert drivers to non-live cameras and they will increase their speed in those circumstances.
I believe that the Conservative amendment is wrong for a second reason. The principle of knowing where cameras are is not wrong because, as I argued last Thursday, I am favour of clear signs saying that a fixed speed camera is ahead in order to slow vehicles down. However, the detectors do not detect only fixed speed cameras; they also detect stationary vehicles—the white vans that we discussed last week with the cameras outside the back—and handheld devices. 
In my part of the country, we have a great deal of difficulty in trying to get the police to monitor specific areas of speeding that are not accident blackspots. One of the arguments that I put to the Government is that there should be a liberalisation of the rules governing where the police can put mobile speed cameras, so that they can deal with specific and persistent offenders, particularly in residential areas. 
 I can think of one example, which comes up time and again when I am knocking on doors. In Teignmouth, a beautiful seaside resort, there is a new small housing estate at the end of Third avenue, and there are two or three boy racers—they are young drivers—who drive down a narrow road at high speed. There are low speed humps on the road but that does not slow their speed down from 35 or 40 mph in that section of the road. If we allowed the boy racers to have one of those detection devices on their vehicle, they could drive down that road any time they wanted in the certainty that they would not be caught, because when they turned into the end of Third avenue, the little device would go ''beep'' and they would slow down. I want those drivers to be caught and prosecuted, and I want them to learn that it is not safe to drive at 40 mph down a very narrow street with houses and parked cars on either side and with young children about. 
If we allow the amendment that has been proposed, it will do two things. First, it will allow drivers to speed through cameras at accident blackspots and, secondly, it will allow people who are persistent offenders in particularly dangerous areas to avoid being caught when driving in a dangerous manner. 
 I thought that my hon. Friend probed very well with his amendment, and agree with his comment about boy racers. As we have discussed, the problem is not with boy racers alone; there are many middle-aged men going through mid-life crises who like to sit astride very large powerful motor bikes or to drive souped-up cars. There are a number of people out there who really ought to know better. I hear laughter from the Minister. I confess that I do have a sports car, and that I enjoy driving with the roof down. I have always had sports cars—[Interruption.] It is not an example of a mid-life crisis. It is something that I have  always done, so if it is a sign of crisis it is an early-life crisis and mid-life crisis and no doubt I shall also end up with a late-life crisis. 
Although those satellite mapping devices show where there are fixed cameras, they do not indicate whether they are live or not, and therefore a motorist will tend to slow down when one is indicated. If the purpose of signing those cameras is correct—the hon. Member for Christchurch made the point that motorists will slow down at those points—it strikes me that those systems are an advantage for road safety, rather than a disadvantage. However, the satellite devices have a failing. A friend has one, but they are not always updated very fast; the cameras go in faster than the system is updated. He was therefore rather taken aback to get a speeding ticket for a camera that did not show up on his system; he had become over-reliant on it. That is his fault for speeding in the first place and not paying attention to what he was doing. 
Essentially, that system is no different from being able to go on to the internet to find out where the speed cameras are. What the clause does, and the probing amendment does not do, is to make it illegal for someone to find out from other sources where the speed cameras are. The satellite devices give local knowledge of where the speed cameras are to someone who is driving—we discussed local knowledge previously. They are an effective way of slowing down vehicles. The measure should be supported.

Peter Pike: Before I call the Minister, I know that it always helps to focus minds on where we are going. If the Committee is going to sit past 5.30 pm, the Chair always likes to adjourn for a break, but I am assured that we are going to slip a little but not too much. I hope that, if people do not want to adjourn for a break and return afterwards, they will keep their minds focused. I say that to try to be helpful to Members, not to be difficult.

David Jamieson: I will certainly obey your strictures, Mr. Pike, because we do not want to detain the Committee any longer than is required to give full, proper and thorough scrutiny of the Bill.
Amendment No. 22, which would remove ''detect'' from the definition of speed assessment equipment detection devices, would enable drivers to continue to fit or carry in their vehicles speed assessment equipment detectors, which warn them whenever they are in the vicinity of any police speed enforcement equipment. It is vital and legitimate police activity to undertake effective speed enforcement, including enforcement away from the published camera sites, to identify and prosecute people who speed. There may be occasions when the police, probably acting on pressure from residents in a local area, set up a mobile site for a period of time to catch the very boy racers that the hon. Member for Christchurch referred to. They may set it up at certain times of the week when those people are proving a problem. Often the sites are in villages and country areas, but sometimes they are  in towns. The seafront in Teignbridge is one area. I know that Plymouth Hoe is a famous racing spot on a Saturday night. 
The last thing that we want is to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests and give those boy racers some equipment that can spot the police so that they can moderate their behaviour on that occasion only. They would be able to detect the presence of the mobile cameras. That sounds like a recipe for helping those boy racers. I do not know whether he has experienced what I am describing in his constituency. If he has, he will know that there is public outrage at the dangers, the noise and everything else that goes with the activity.

Christopher Chope: I did not refer to boy racers, but if I were to do so, I would also refer to girl racers because the Minister is being unduly sexist in thinking that it is only the male fraternity who break the speed limit.

David Jamieson: I was using a generic term. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say there may be males or females behind the wheel, although I have to say that most of the time those who are involved in such activities are males and tend to be quite young.
There are three levels at which equipment in a vehicle can operate in regard to speed cameras. The first involves any piece of equipment that blocks or in some way jams the signal from the camera. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that there was an unanswerable case for a ban in that respect. We seem to be totally agreed on that. He asked whether that equipment was illegal. There was some doubt about that, but it has been cleared up. I was determined that we should put that beyond doubt in the Bill. We will make that equipment illegal so that people cannot use it. 
The next level is those devices that will detect a camera and decide whether it is operational. A lot of the time the cameras do not have film in them. Sometimes the radar device that flashes the light is not operating, and sometimes the cameras are not doing anything at all and are completely benign. Those cameras still have a deterrent effect on people because there is always the chance that they may get caught, so they slow down. If they have a device that detects whether a fixed camera is in operation, they can speed past it with impunity. They know with a high degree of certainty that they can carry on speeding at sites where there are known high levels of death and injury because those are the only places that the fixed sites can be put. Is the hon. Member for Christchurch saying that people who can afford to put such devices in their car should do so? Surely they must have only one motive in mind: that of exceeding the speed limit. That is the only motive there could be for putting in a device that detects whether speed cameras are operational. They want to exceed the speed limit at a site where casualties are very high. 
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that such people should be allowed to have detectors in their vehicles? According to the thrust of his amendment, I am afraid that he is saying that. I do not agree. Those devices should not be permitted for fixed sites that are used in  partnership programmes, or for those sites that the police operate outside partnership agreements for proper law enforcement purposes. People should not be able to buy a device that prevents the police from doing the job that local communities want them to do. 
The third level of apparatus tells a person where the sites are. People can interrogate a website to find out where the sites are, and many local authorities publish those details clearly. My local police station has a big map with every single one marked on it. I have no difficulty with people knowing where the cameras are, because that shows people where they need to slow down. They do not need a detector device to tell them they are turned on; they just need to slow down at those sites. The camera is not only telling people that they might get caught, but showing them a place where speeding causes death and injury, so that they should be particularly mindful of their speed. 
All of us agree that the device that blocks a signal should be outlawed. The hon. Member for Christchurch thinks that some people should get away with it at certain sites, but I disagree. The amendment from the Liberal Democrats was a probing one, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. I hope that he can see the reason why we have no problem with people knowing where the sites are, but we have a problem with people being able to detect whether they are operational. There is a world of difference between the two positions. 
The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about his road angel. I thought that the angels were there to save us. It seems that those angels save people only from fines; they do not save drivers or other people from death and injury. That is not a very useful sort of angel: I would call it a road devil. I hope that has been a helpful debate, and I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

Christopher Chope: It has been an interesting debate and we have put clear blue water between what we say and what the Liberal Democrats and the Government are saying. The Minister picked up on the point about the Road Angel. From the promotional material that Road Angel produce, I understand that the company thinks that that product will continue to be lawful under the provisions in clause 17. The Minister seemed to be saying that that is incorrect. Certainly, those devices are marketed on the basis that they will continue to be lawful even after the Bill becomes law.

David Jamieson: It may help the Committee, in case we have been misinformed, if the hon. Gentleman were to set out what the Road Angel can achieve.

Christopher Chope: I am no promoter of the Road Angel. All I know is that a large number of people have purchased them. A colleague of mine told me that his wife had bought him one for Christmas, and when I told him that it cost the best part of £400, he realised how generous she had been. My knowledge of Road Angels goes little beyond knowledge of their price and where one can purchase them. If the Minister wants  information about Road Angels, I suggest that he uses all the resources available to him as a Minister to find out a bit more.
It is very important that, whatever the Government intend by the clause, people who go out and buy equipment so that they can identify accident blackspots and be safer drivers should know whether such equipment will be banned. If there are fixed camera sites at accident blackspots without operational cameras in them, I would ask why not, and why a game of bluff is being played. The Minister seems to think that anyone who exceeds the speed limit is of a suicidal tendency. I do not think that that is the case. We must try to ensure that speed limits are realistic and command respect and support from the motoring public. 
There are accident blackspots, and it is reasonable to enable people to know where they are. There are anomalies with some of the speed cameras that are available at the moment. I think that they are called Truvelo speed cameras and they are forward-facing. We mentioned earlier that speeding motorcyclists are the biggest problem on the roads. They cannot be detected by Truvelo forward facing cameras. The Government still allow their installation, although they fail to detect the biggest speeding menace on the roads. 
The Government are rather muddled. A clear definition of what will be excluded under the Bill would be better; that definition should be limited to pieces of equipment that interfere with law enforcement and have a jamming device. I ask the Committee to support the amendment. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: What time scale does the Minister have in mind for the implementation of the regulations under the clause? Will they incorporate a system of compensation for people who bought equipment when it was legitimate and lawful, but will now find that it is unlawful as a result of the Bill?

David Jamieson: The provisions will be implemented at the earliest possible date. They are important measures and I think that little further consultation on  the issue is needed; there is strong public feeling about them. We have included no provision to compensate people who have bought equipment with a view to avoiding being caught on a camera, when, clearly, their only purpose in doing so was to speed at sites where they thought that the cameras were not operational.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Exemptions from speed limits

Mr. Knight:
 I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 18, page 24, line 1, at end insert— 
 '( ) Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is to be entitled ''(exemption of fire, ambulance, police and military vehicles from speed limits)''.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 42, in clause 18, page 24, line 2, leave out 
 'Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)' 
and insert 'that Act'. 
No. 43, in clause 18, page 24, line 5, after '(a)', insert 
', after ''ambulance'' insert '', military''.'. 
No. 44, in clause 18, page 24, line 9, at end insert 
(ba) if a serving officer of Her Majesty's Armed Forces has certified in writing within 28 days of the date of any breach of the speed limit that the vehicle was being used for military purposes in the line of duty, or'.

Greg Knight: This is a probing amendment relating to clause 18, which contains exemptions from speed limits. We welcome the inclusion of clause 18 on the Bill. I am sure that, like me, the Minister was disgusted when an ambulance driver taking an organ for a transplant was prosecuted some months ago for speeding, a decision made by someone whom I can only describe as a regulation-ridden, form-filling, pen-pushing nincompoop. There are occasions when we want and expect those going about their job, usually in the emergency services, to reach their destination quickly, because by doing so they may save a life. They might be an ambulance driver with an organ for transplant, a fire engine driver on his way to a fire or a police officer attending an incident.
It is quite proper that there are categories of people who are exempt from speed limits. I just wonder why a serving member of the armed forces, whose job it is to defend us all, appears not to be covered by the exemption. The rather bizarre situation could arise of a fireman exceeding the speed limit one month while attending a fire and being exempt; the following month, if there were a fireman's strike, an Army officer driving a green goddess to a fire could be prosecuted for speeding. An ambulance driver going to an accident is exempt, but a member of the armed forces using an armed forces vehicle performing the same  function could, again, be prosecuted. A member of the armed forces could, as part of his job, be attending an emergency situation no less dangerous, and no less of a threat to the public, as an incident being attended by a police officer. Yet the officer would get off scot- free while the member of the armed forces could find himself being prosecuted. The amendments, combined, seek to exempt a member of the armed forces acting in the line of duty. Subject to what the Minister has to say, I commend them to the Committee.

Richard Younger-Ross: Briefly, I am sympathetic to the points made. In my role as spokesman, I used to cover the fire services. There were instances of fire engines getting tickets, followed by the whole rigmarole of establishing that no offence had been committed, the engine was actually going to a fire, and so on. We ought to cut that nonsense out at the same time and exempt them. I have a question, which the Minister might answer in summation. Why is the term ''military vehicles'' used, rather than specifying emergency vehicles that belong to the military services?

David Jamieson: The amendments seek to broaden the definition contained in clause 18 to include the military as one of those organisations allowed to exceed the speed limit. While there are certain arms of the military that may need, on specified occasions, to exceed the speed limit, I do not believe the military as a whole requires exemption. The way I read these amendments, a squaddie could come home from his tour of duty and, because he was a member of the military, go as fast as he liked on the road. I am not sure I would advocate that.
Clause 18 amends section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 so as to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe, by regulations, other purposes—in such circumstances as may be prescribed—for which vehicles may be exempt from speed limits. The amendment to section 87 of that Act will also ensure the appropriate level of training is achieved by those drivers who will be required to drive at high speeds. Any organisation that believes it has a case for a speed limit exemption may of course apply to the Department, and a number have made approaches to us. 
Successful cases will be granted through secondary legislation, within which the circumstances under which any prescribed exemption can be undertaken will be clearly defined. Ultimately, safety must be paramount and my Department must ensure that only those drivers who are trained properly and have a valid reason for exceeding the speed limit are allowed to receive the exemption. 
In moving the amendment, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred to a case of an ambulance driver taking a transplant, as he termed it. My understanding is that the confusion here was that the vehicle was not an ambulance, nor a vehicle serving the purpose of an ambulance. It was actually carrying a kidney, or at least an organ for the purposes of transplant; I am not sure whether it was a kidney. Here  lies the difficulty; it was not actually an ambulance that was going at speed. That is why in this particular case those enforcing the law, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, were doing so properly. What may be wrong in this case is the actual law. 
Within the clause, we will have the ability to look at all those cases where it could be possible that a vehicle actually taking a transplanted organ would be deemed an ambulance. But there would have to be provision that any person doing so would need to be properly trained. The last thing we would want is people going on important missions on a blue light—either to a fire, or to save someone's life in hospital—and running over someone else's child on the way. It would be totally disproportionate to the good that they may do. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying we want them to reach their destination quickly, but it must of course be within the bounds of safety. That is why we have put in this piece about training. 
The right hon. Member also talked about the Army, who may be called upon to do other duties from time to time. There would only be very few Army ambulances going on the roads, but if they are on the public road as an ambulance and used for ambulance purposes, then I understand they are exempt from the speed limit. The same is also true for the Army when operating in place of firemen; they effectively become firemen and are therefore exempt from the speed limits when they are conducting those particular activities. So the military, when carrying out some of the excellent work that they do—sometimes supplanting civilian efforts, sometimes working in defence of this country—will be exempt in appropriate circumstances. 
I hope the right hon. Member would agree that generally, when the Army are moving vehicles around the country, these are slow-moving convoys. When they are moving equipment and goods around, there is absolutely no reason why we should give them the exemption from the speed limit. Most of the vehicles—large tank transporters, for example—would probably be incapable of going above the speed limit on the road. We do make provision for them on the road. Often when they are moving heavy vehicles in big convoys, they give notice to the Highways Agency and we make provision so that they can safely do that. Although there was the right sort of motive behind these particular amendments, on reflection the right hon. Gentleman might want to revisit the amendments and, in the light of the debate, perhaps withdraw.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply, and for placing on record his view that there may be occasions when members of the armed forces need to exceed the speed limit. He was honest and fair enough to tell the Committee that he would be prepared to look at other exemptions and to consider representations. I do not think, quite honestly, that I could ask for more. The Minister has  satisfied me that he is not going to restrict the ambit of this clause to the groups named on the face of the Bill, and is therefore prepared to consider other exemptions that carry merit. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: This debate gives an opportunity for the Minister to address the issue raised, tangentially, by the hon. Member for Teignbridge in the previous debate. There is currently an enormous amount of bureaucracy involved in sending out fixed penalty notices to the authorities—the police, the fire service, doctors and so on—when someone has gone over the limit as noted by a speed camera. As I understand it, because there is effectively no discretion at that level, the driver then has to write back and explain the circumstances. There is a good reason for that, of course, because the exemption from the speed limit only applies to vehicles which are being used for the purpose of that particular enterprise. So a police vehicle which is not on police duty but exceeds the speed limit is not exempt. There is an enormous amount of bureaucracy involved in all this, however. I wondered if the Minister could explain what is being done within this Bill to reduce that bureaucracy, which I understand is quite significant.
Can the Minister also deal with the issue of people using defensive driving techniques? Certainly, during the lifetime of this Government, I think it was the Home Secretary who was being driven far in excess of the speed limit down an open motorway to the west country; going to a Labour party conference, if my memory serves me right. The Home Secretary's driver was able to argue that this was defensive driving, maybe because he was going near the Minister's home. I do not know where it was, but somewhere in the west country. Being serious about this, to what extent does the Minister feel that there is one law for drivers in that type of situation, and another for all the other ordinary motorists?

Richard Younger-Ross: Further to the point raised by the Conservatives, my understanding is that if the blue light is clearly flashing when the camera takes the photograph, a ticket will not be issued, because it is clear that it is an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency. Could the bureaucracy be cut if, instead of just relying on the fixed light, emergency vehicles had a permanent light on the back which would indicate they were on their way to an emergency? Therefore, when the camera took its photograph, it would be clear that they were on their way to an emergency, saving the ticket office and emergency services time in not having to respond.

David Jamieson: The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about the bureaucracy for fixed penalties. This is an important issue, and I will certainly look at the idea the hon. Member for Teignbridge has raised as a possible solution. It may be that it creates more problems and costs than the other way around, but we  obviously have to find a balance. That is a useful suggestion, and we will certainly look at it.
It is important, even for the police, the fire service and the ambulance service—who have a dispensation to exceed the speed limit in certain circumstances—that they demonstrate that there is good reason why they are doing so. 
I am sad to say that there are many casualties on our roads while vehicles are on blue lights. There was a dreadful case the other side of the river a year or so ago, near to where I abide during the week, when a blue light vehicle on the way to an event that did not involve risk to life killed somebody. It is important that, on every occasion when such vehicles exceed the speed limit and go through the cameras, they demonstrate that they are on a genuine blue light service and are not going fast simply because they have chosen to do so. Therefore, they must obey the law, but on occasions society gives them dispensation because of the work they do on our behalf. 
A range of other organisations has expressed an interest. Customs and Excise often enforces the law, particularly on such things as drugs. Other groups include the Secret Service, the special forces, MOD bomb disposal vehicles and MOD naval nuclear accident teams, which are dear to my heart. Such groups may apply for a dispensation and may look to receive one. 
I hope that the Committee will therefore agree to include the clause in the Bill. 
Question agreed to. 
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 27 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.